Watch What I Say, Not What I Did

In an attempt to show that she's got more testosterone than Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton has recently---and repeatedly---said that if Iran were to attack Israel, as Commander-in-Chief she would respond by "totally obliterating" Iran.

Asked yesterday by George Stephanopolous if she wanted to reconsider that policy, she said flatly, "No." Then: "Why would I have any regrets? I'm asked a question about what I would do if Iran attacked our ally, a country that many of us have a great deal of, you know, connection with and feeling for, for all kinds of reasons. And yes, we would have massive retaliation against Iran."

The beauty of the Junior Senator from New York, is that unlike the Junior Senator from Illinois, she's actually already BEEN president for two terms, so we can examine her record---and see if what she says now aligns with what she did then. After all, she's running on the "experience" she gleaned from her first co-presidency. And by her own admission, she was in on every major policy decision.

In 1993, when the World Trade Center was bombed by Islamic terrorists, she counseled her husband NOT to visit the New York site, because it would remind voters of his lack of military service. The response from the Clinton co-presidents? None.

In 1998, U.S. embassies were bombed in Kenya and Tanzania. The response from the Clinton co-presidents? None.

In the late 1990s, Saddam Hussein was shooting at American aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones. The response from the Clinton co-presidents? Targeted enforcement, and a signature on the Iraqi Liberation Act, calling for regime change in Baghdad. Follow-up by the co-presidents? None.

In 2000, the U.S.S. Cole was attacked by Islamic terrorists. The response from the Clinton co-presidents? None.

Several times during the late 1990s, U.S. intelligence services provided the Clinton co-presidents with credible information as to the precise whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, with immediate plans for his termination. Their response? None.

Today, she attacks President Bush for not using diplomacy and allies more aggressively, but on Iran, he has used both and they have failed. She assails him for even having a military option to consider, but she's saying that as president (again), she'd "totally obliterate" Iran.

Pick a side, Senator.

When Hillary tries to claim that she'd respond to an Iranian attack on Israel by wiping the Iranians out, look at her record. There's nothing there to suggest she'd go down that road. You may like that idea. But she's saying something else now. Just to get elected? Or would she really do it? And how to tell?

I'd bank on looking at her record.

Comments

[Ummah Gummah]

Yep, a typical dhimmicrat. if it weren't for thje Dhims there's be no islamic menace today.

I'd have nuked them over the hostages at the latest. But in the first place they'd have never taken our hostages because I'd have offed the a**ahola K*k*mamie long before he had the chance to do much damage.

Yep, the Carters and the Clintons.. stupid is as stupid does.

They missed the chance to stop Khomeini and bin Laden in their tracks.. and now we are supposed to believe that Hitlery will do anything to retaliate?

She will only retaliate against talkshow hosts should she ever have a chance to do so.

Stopping thew islamists..? No-ooo.. THAT would be politically incorrect!

All the professors would hate her!!

Get the Dhims in office and Noam Chomsky will be in charge of State.

[Ummah Gummah]

PS: It's gonna be plenty bad with Mexicain but at least one can hope that finally a strong candidate will emerge for 2012.

Let the Dhims run all three branches and they will cut down the tree..

[Truther]

The all knowing and seeing Lady is right again : Hillary would let Iran build a nuclear weapon - but then hey, watch out !

[gringoman]

Yes, Monica (and Ummah), we at GAB (Gringo Advisory Board)find merit in every one of your points about Two-Headed and Jimmuh, and their credo of Talk Big and Carry a Soft Stick.

Which is why we are obligated to point out the Islamic terror of 1983 in Beirut, 63 dying in the US Embassy blast on 18April, with little reaction from President Reagan. This was followed on October 23, the Marine Barracks blown up, 241 American Marines, sailors and soldiers dead from the immense blast.

The Iranians and other groups did it.

Reagan's response? He withdrew all US forces. That was the brunt of his reaction.

Americans--of whatever political persuasion--- could not or would not not smite the enemy. Even when American man had a big stick, he did not how to use it. (Need any current examples be cited?)

Friends took note. Enemies did too, whether external or internal.

[gringoman]

Just in case anyone somehow would not realize exactly which word was left out in a sentence above....

'Even when American man had a big stick, he did not know how to use it.'

[Michael Avari]

Gringoman,

Reagan responded to Middle East terrorism forcefully, but wisely. In the former column count his bombing of Libyan military installations after the attack on a W. Berlin disco, planning to send the SEALs to take the Achille Lauro, and intercepting an Egyptian transport plane carrying PLO terrorists.

In the “wise” column, Reagan knew it would not serve US interests to become embroiled in a protracted guerilla fight in Lebanon, so he wrote the Reagan Doctrine:

"1. The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.
"2. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support to win. It must not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.
"3. Before we commit our troops, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress.
"4. Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat only as a last resort, when no other choice is available."

Today, The Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. Marines killed 18 Shiite militants. And I thought we were in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda? While we can’t expect Bush to have read Reagan’s books, we hope McCain has.

Cheers,

[FredK2929]

OK, everyone, hold onto your hats. You've seen me agree with Ummah. Today, I agree with GRINGOMAN!!!!

If you think that the US has not been forceful enough with Arabs/Muslims, you can't just look at the two Democratic presidents in the last 25 years. You MUST look at Reagan's responses to the Beirut bombing and his trading of arms with the terrorists holding our people hostage.

It's absurd to blame Carter and Clinton without looking at Reagan.

I think that Monica has said a lot of absurd things in her column today. I just can't respond to all of them right now. Hillary Clinton has suggested that her time as First Lady should be included as experience. That does not mean that she has said she was in on every one of Bill Clinton's decisions or that she actually was a president. I just can't believe some of the things I read here. I really can't. I really have to make an effort not to visit this absurd blog and read the idiocy here. (Not you, Michael, and not you, Gringoman, TODAY, although you are absurd every other time.)

[Michael Avari]

Fred,

I agree that Reagan's Iran-Contra ordeal was both illegal and poor policy. I believe even Reagan sincerely regretted the whole thing, but to be fair, it was Oliver North's extremism that took a naive attempt to reach "moderate" Iranians (through the Israeli's, whose idea it was to begin with) to a point of a government without a check or a balance (in itself a very anti-conservative concept, which makes me wonder why North is still welcome on Human Events and Hannity's show). Goldwater said “Extremism in the DEFENSE of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." North confused "defense" with "pursuit".

But we can't confuse retreating from Beirut, if that is what is implied, as contradicting an otherwise a successful Reagan Mid-East policy. Sometimes an orderly retreat is the best military strategy, as Napoleon would have told us after having his troops decimated in his retreat from Moscow. Under the circumstances, that was Reagan's best move, although tragically we lost these brave Marines.

Would you not agree, though, that as Monica points out, Clinton's plan for a localized, McNamara-like mutually assured Israel-Iran destruction manifests undue belligerence, extreme naïveté, absence of understanding of the most volatile part of the world, or all of the above?

Cheers,

[Ummah Gummah]

Michael I totally have to disagree. First of all, we could have retaliated in many creative ways when they bombed the US Barracks in Beirut.

You assume falsely that a major involvement of ground troops was our only option.

On the other hand, if we had unleashed ground troops upon Lebanon WITHOUT PC ROE to hamstring them I am dead certain they'd have carried out their mission to perfection.

And there is always the aerial bombardment option which is what I think should have been done.

So sorry if I have a hard time feeling sorry for their "civilians".

collateral damage occurs on both sides in a war. They actually target our civiliabs deliberately so theirs should be considered fair game until the enemy changes its ways of warfare.

Michael, this war will not be won in a gentlemanly manner.

That is where all our casualties come from.. our GD chivalry toward these dastardly devilish moongod-worshippers.

[Ummah Gummah]

I like how the Russians handle islamists.. One of these terrorist groups took a KGB officer hostage in Lebanon back in the eighties.

The Russians figuerd out who the ringöleader was, captured his 15yo nephew or son, I forget which, severed the lad's pinkie and had it delivered to said ringleader with the messager that every day that their KGB man was in captivity they'd keep sending more parts until the terrorists had them all if they desired to re-assemble the boy.

Needless to say, the KGB man was free within the hour and the Russians have never been bothered again in that part of the world.

My friends, we are gravely mistaken if we think that these are people to be "won over" or something foolish like that.

Just look at how they behave when they are allowed to settle amongst us within our very own lands.

New York, London and Madrid are but highlights in a continual string of actions designed to express their deep gratitude for us sharing our hard-won open societies with them.

[Michael Avari]

UG,

Arial bombing against whom? I tried to find "Hezbollah Headquaters" on Google maps and failed, so I doubt the Pentagon knows where it is because Rumsfeld made certain that the only party shocked and awed by his poor intelligence and his video game "hit them from 50,000 ft. with smart bombs" strategy were a stunned American public. There is nothing gentlemanly, sportsman-like, or glorious about war, except indiviudal self-sacrifice and heroism that befalls the unsuspecting fighting man. These are not to be elicited lightly as American lives are too precious. But when engaged, they must be given every opportunity to win. As small as Lebanon is, no country can dominate her. Contrarywise, Lebanon and Beirut, the former "Paris of the Mediterranean" should be rid of Iranian and Syrian influence, not by war in Lebanon but by pressure on Tehran and Damascus.

The Russian way of dealing with Middle East extremism only landed them defeat in Afganistan and contempt on the world stage. The parallels with our Russian-like approach in Guantanamo and the affect we create on the world scene are too seductive to contemplate.

Un-Russian-like why do we do not have 150,000 troops in Afganistan/Pakistan looking to kill an elderly, tired 6'6" man purportedly on a dialysis machine, stumbling his way through the mountains with third world weapons, whose name is as notorious as Al Capone?

[Michael Avari]

And forgive me, but I must say Monica is absolutely right on this point: the Clintonians had Bin Laden in the cross-hairs of U.S. power on several occassions and declined the invitation.

But ... rather than beating up on Rev. Wright, or digging for tenuous links with William Ayers, where is the Conservative press on this issue?!

Is this not more important? The enemy is Al Qaeda, not some retired, self-absorbed, irrational pastor from a church in Chicago.

[Ummah Gummah]

While I agree on the utter depravity of the Clinonian refusal to off bin Laden that does not absolve the next administration from having to clean up the mess caused by bust this refusal.

Second, you unfairly conflate Russian activities I describe in Lebanon with their activity in Afghanistan.

Do I need to remind you that it was Dhimmi Carter who armed AQ/Taliban in their Afghan wars and now the Russians are paying us back gleefully in Iran.

We made the mistake of betting on the worng horse then and we should stop confounding these blunders.

To say we can't bomb "cuz we don't know where exactly Hezbolla HQ is" sounds ludicrous.

You bomb WW2-style and you take out their infrastructure until they wave the white flag. And then you keep going a few more days just to let them know we are not to be messed around with.

Let them come and HAND us all of their Hezbolla agents and all the iranians there who are helping them.

This worked in WW2 and I assure you it still works. The Sudanese are bombing in Darfur each and every day.

They got rid of all the black Christians and animists by slaughter and now they are getting rid of the black moslems.

That is a totally offensive war and not much is being done about it.

What I keep talking about is that we need an urgent understanding with the Russians and possibly the Chinese - in which case the Euro-weenies can either decide to get on board or stay on the sidelines.

We need to have an international response to islamic terror which also proceeds by ideology and by subversion.

The problem is that our "leaders" - both Clinton and Bush - have and still do receive handsomely from their SOWdi paymasters.

[M/M]

As I walked out of work today, I heard "OPERATION CHAOS" and cheers. Yes, tomorrow is the North Carolina and Indiana primaries and the race is really heating up. How hot?

Well, yesterday on George's show, Hillary announced that Rush has a crush on her. Here is Rush's reaction:

"RUSH: Do you hear how happy she sounds? She sounds schoolgirl happy. Mrs. Clinton sounds schoolgirl happy. She's laughing and cackling it all up out there. You remember, my friends, she's saying it's so much fun out there now, I have a crush on her, she's having more fun than she's had in a long time, she's winning these primaries, or coming close."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0tQPodGgeM (Rush dedicates "Emotional Rescue" by the Rolling Stones to Hillary)

Here is Hillary on "Fox & Friends" today:

"HILLARY: Nobody. I'm just having a good time. I think this is so much fun, campaigning across our country, and especially these last couple of weeks in North Carolina and Indiana. People have been wonderful. The spring is here, everything is blooming. I mean, how could you not have a good time? It's been wonderful.

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, the contrast is stark and undeniable. Everything's blooming. She's got schoolgirl giddiness after announcing yesterday she thinks I have a crush on her. You heard the contrast. Something has clearly changed out there."

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_050508/content/01125106.guest.html

That's our Rush - Saving one woman at a time.

[Michael Avari]

UG, my friend, let's come back full circle to Monica's thesis: then you support Clinton when she wants to obliterate, WW-2 style (European or Japanese theater?) Iran if they attack Israel?

[Ummah Gummah]

Yes MA, if she would REALLY do that I would support her. And make Hussein O her Veep if he will keep his promises to attack Pakistan.

At this time I don't care how liberal they are at home if they can get the job done abroad.

We need to finally curb moslem immigration to the West. We do not have a single benefit from it.

And please STOP allowing them to build their hideous mosks everywhere!!

No more mosks until we see Synagogues and Churches in their countries.

END OF STORY!

[FredK2929]

I wish I could stop coming here, I really do.

Ummah . . . Do you not understand that many of the Muslims who have come HERE are HERE because of the lack of freedom in their countries of origin? If you curtail the establishment of mosques, you are punishing people who came here because of our freedom, and it has no effect on the countries you dislike so much.

And you, Michael . . . Do you have any evidence that Bill Clinton had bin Laden in his "cross-hairs" and blew the opportunity, other than urban legend and that absurd book "Dereliction of Duty"?

I can't believe that liberalism can still be said like it's a dirty word when I read the s*** here. Conservatism should be the curse word.

[Michael Avari]

Fred,

Please see the reference below.

http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory091103b.asp

This is one of many. I also recall reading an article in Foreign Affairs several years before 9/11, giving clear evidence that the French offered Bin Laden to Clinton in the Sudan, but candidly cannot find the article on line. I will look in a library if you are interested.

To be fair, Bush let Bin Laden go too at Tora Bora, so my inveighing is not directed only at Clinton, but at a failed US policy spanning several administrations. The reason Hillary is under scrutiny in this election year is this: she seems to show signs of schizophrenia or at least hallucination on foreign policy. Between flipping and flopping on whether the war in Iraq is justified, whether she would vote now on authorizing the war, for or against NAFTA, vacillation on free trade with Colombia as a marriage dispute, nuking Iran, war stories (or fish tales) about dodging bullets with Chelsea by her side, and Bill's own lies about Bin Laden of which she must have had knowledge (subject of his angry interview with Chris Wallace), I cringe each time she says "I'm ready to be your Commander-in-Chief on day one." Don’t you?

Or please explain if she has a coherent foreign policy.

By the way, I hope I have never used "Liberal" as a dirty word. Americans should reserve their contempt for enemies of America, not each other.

On that topic, did you see how the Russians are planning the first military parade in Red Square since the fall of the Soviet Union, under the pretext of the defeat of the Nazi's? I wonder how Mrs. Commander Clinton would deal with a possible re-emergence of Russian hegemony?

Cheers,

[FredK2929]

Michael --

When I get annoyed about how "lib", "liberal", and other words get tossed about here, I'm not referring to you.

[Michael Avari]

See Fred ... we're not all bad. I just received a newsletter from Newt Gingrich in which he says:

"The Anti-Obama, Anti-Wright, and Anti-Clinton GOP Model Has Been Tested -- And It Failed"

He is calling on a positive strategy of ideas for the 2008 elections after the losses of Congressional seats in Louisiana and Illinois.

Now we're getting somewhere ...

[FredK2929]

But is Gingrich right? Going negative has worked for Republicans for the last 20 years (remember what Lee Atwater did to Dukakis?), and it worked for W. Bush twice.

[Ummah Gummah]

Great.. are you talking about that Gingrich who's jumped on the Algore bandwagon..?

He's lost..

We need a system with more than only two parties.

[Ummah Gummah]

What DID Lee Atwater "do" to Dukakis..? Huh..?

Showed him acting like the phony "tank commander" he is.. exposed his liberal record of letting criminals loose on the general populace..

I don't subscribe to that liberal dictum of the "racist" Willie Horton ad.

If they'd made that story up - say, to illustrate how liberal Dukakis was - then you could infer the racism angle.

But the spot being based on actual fact the liberal howling was caused because the truth hurts.

These are things the libs would rather not talk about in an election year.

So they use the "racism" club.

Oh and "n"pr is blabbing about "voter suppression" in what they call their "news" segment.

They're worried that Hitlery might beat out their boy Hussein for the nomination after all.. it's all so transparent.. oh so fair and balanced is the Left..

[Ummah Gummah]

Fred.... Do you not understand that many of the Muslims who have come HERE are HERE because of the liberal propaganda and delusions that they are here due to the lack of freedom in their countries of origin?

Fred said: If you curtail the establishment of mosques, you are punishing people who came here because of our freedom, and it has no effect on the countries you dislike so much.

WHO ever said I care ONE iota about their countriee? Nor do I wish to have any "effect" on them except that they keep their citizens at home.

Do YOU not understand that THEY ar using liberal delusions re. the Freedom-seeking moslem masses yearning to be free in order to gain entrance and benefits from the very lands they wish to subjugate and eventually rule?

Have you never heard of Ibrahn Hooper from CAIR who said he'd like to replace the Constitution with the KKKorag? Yep, that's a "moderate" moslem we are talking about here! One who gets to meet Bush and have his ear.

If that's a moderate I sure don't want the more radical ones around.. those freedom-yearning Mohameta attas for example..

Those freedom-loving seekers of liberty who bombed the trains in London and Madrid..

Oh yes, those huddled masses of terrorists yearning to kill.

Give me a big fat break, Fred.

Unfortunately it's usually the non-liberals who pay the ultimate price for the very policies caused by the delusions of the International Left. Like the 3000 dead in the World Trade Center. The TSA agents who allowed Mohamed atta to borad his one-wayt flight the morning of 911 did so inspite of the red flag that his name brought up.

They were intimidated about "profiling". The liberal reord is clear: They'd raher see Americans dead than to be "racist" in any way. Racist as the lunatic fringe defines it.. bascially all you have to do is be white and you are "racist".

Remember there was National Socialism. Now we have IINTERnational Socialism.

[FredK2929]

Addressing your third to last paragraph: Are you suggesting that there were no liberals in the World Trade Center?

You generalize quite a bit. I'm not suggesting that every Muslim who comes here is an angel. But you are suggesting punishing all of them based on a few (I know, you think it's all or most of them).

So one guy you mention wants to replace the Constitution with the Koran. (I never heard of this guy.) Do you think that's a realistic goal he has?

[FredK2929]

What you are suggesting, UG, sounds a lot like "thought crime" in "1984". If someone thinks something you don't like, he must be punished.

I looked up Ibrahim Hooper, and he says that while he will not say that he would not like the U.S. to be a Muslim country, he would not do anything violent to make that happen, but would do it through education.

We should punish him because we don't like how he feels?

[FredK2929]

What Lee Atwater did was drive a campaign based on image rather than substance. He did what he could to make Dukakis look bad. Essentially, Dukakis lost because he looked bad in a tank. Great basis for choice of leader.

Before he died, Atwater admitted that he regretted how he conducted himself in politics. I wonder if Karl Rove will do the same, but I suspect that Rove is more evil (i.e., has no capacity for empathy) than Atwater.

[Ummah Gummah]

We should punish him because we don't like how he feels?
POSTED BY: FREDK2929

--

Hooper happens to be the head of the politically most influential moslem organization in the US.

It is fair to say that his ideas reflect the ideas of many of his followers.

And by the way, they ALL hate Israel... a JEWISH state smack-dab in the middle of dar-al-islam.

Israel is that big fat Middle Finger which none of them can ignore.

I never said I want to 'punish' Iblis Hooper. I merely said that I want as many people as possible to know that this is a mainstream attitutde in islam.

I am certain that most sane Americans - and all Westerners really - wouldn't want people who harbor these sentiments be allowed to live among us.. consume our resources and abuse our hard-earned social benefits while they plot against us behind our backs.

[Ummah Gummah]

So Fred has no issues with moslems wanting to make this country moslem as well.

Don't you think they have plenty enough countries already?

All of them badly managed I might add.. so what makes you think they wouldn't drag us down with them?

What country are those of us who don't wish tro grow a beard or date women in hefty-bags supposed to go to?

There has to be an islam-free zone somewhere!

One day the whole world will be islamized and all that will be left will be tiny little Israel clutching its giant nuclear stick.

I guess we should all go there and let islam gorge its violent self on the rest?

[FredK2929]

I don't have to like his ideas. I can be against them. But making America "free" of a certain religion? That's not the America I know. It's not the Constitution and Bill of Rights that I have read.

Have you and your prejudiced cohorts passed a different Constitution and Bill of Rights while I wasn't looking, Gumhead?

[Ummah Gummah]

Fred, for the UMPTEETH TIME.. islam is NOT a religion. it is a complete social system. It is an expansionist imperialist creed bent on World Conquest.

What if the Nazis had proclaimed fascism to be a religion?

Then what, Fred?!

[Ummah Gummah]

And one more time, SPECIAL FrKay.. islam is NOT a religion!

islam is a total system hell-bent on world domination.

Only the willfully blind refuse to see this.

[Ummah Gummah]

The Neocons want to make money off the "stupid" sheiks and do not see how they are getting played. or maybe they are simply willing to strike the Faustian bargain which invests them in power and wealth for now in exchange for selling out their nations bit by bit via immigration and creeping legal and social concessions.

On the other side we have the willfully blind libs who simply cannot bring themselves to see these vile moslems as anything but the "oppressed freedom fighters".

When they say freedom they mean a world free from US "infidels"!

[Ummah Gummah]

If you want to accuse anyone of wanting another Holocaust, Special K Fred.. you need to look in the direction of Riyadh, Mecca, the Gaza Strip, Tehran, Damascus and so on..

THAT is where the next Holocaust is being planned.

And this time it won't be only Jews.

[Ummah Gummah]

They may want to start with the Jews ie. Israel but they will take whatever they can get at the moment then then work from there.

[FredK2929]

UG --

You might want to look into voluntary commitment. You might also want to ask ahead that your doctor is not Muslim so you are not tempted to kill him.